Dean v. Tony Spiak Auto Body, 2003 NY Slip Op 51435(U) (NY 10/23/2003)

• Decision Date: 23 October 2003
• Docket Number: 2003-61 D C.
• Parties: JACK CAMERON DEAN, Respondent, v. TONY SPIAK AUTO BODY, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 1

2003 NY Slip Op 51435(U)

JACK CAMERON DEAN, Respondent, v. TONY SPIAK AUTO BODY, Appellant.

2003-61 D C.

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.

Decided October 23, 2003.

Appeal by defendant from a small claims judgment of the Justice Court, Town of LaGrange, Dutchess County (E. Caplicki, Jr.), entered October 31, 2002, in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $2,900 and dismissing its counterclaim.

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.

PRESENT: DOYLE, P.J., RUDOLPH and SKELOS, JJ.

Plaintiff commenced the instant small claims action, sounding in conversion, based on defendant's failure to repair and return his vehicle. Defendant counterclaimed for repair services rendered. While generally a registered motor vehicle garage which "tows, stores, maintains, keeps or repairs" a motor vehicle with the consent of the owner has a lien upon the motor vehicle for the sum due for repair services performed thereon (Lien Law § 184 [1]), when, as in the instant case, there is no agreed-upon price for the repairs, a motor vehicle repair shop may only avail itself of this statute where it is established that the charges were reasonable for the services rendered (see Continental Ins. Co. v. Consumer Towing & Collision, 189 Misc 2d 172). Defendant failed to establish that the charges for the repairs it rendered were reasonable since it submitted two bills for different sums ($3,500 and $5,212.85) allegedly representing the reasonable value of the repairs. As such, defendant had no valid mechanic's lien and once plaintiff requested the return of his vehicle, defendant's act of not complying with said request constituted conversion (see Heneghan v. Cap-A-Radiator Shops, 132 Misc 2d 936). In light of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the lower court's award of $2,900 in favor of plaintiff representing the reasonable value of plaintiff's vehicle and dismissing the counterclaim rendered substantial justice between the parties in accordance with the rules

Page 3

and principles of substantive law (see UJCA 1807).